January 29, 2012

These figures reflect a significant turnaround over the past week. Last Sunday, just after his big win in the South Carolina Primary, Gingrich led Romney by nine. By the middle of this past week, Romney was back in control with an eight-point advantage. Despite all the ups and downs, the results today are very similar to polling results found in Florida three weeks ago, coming off Romney’s decisive victory in the New Hampshire Primary.

What happened? Was it Romney getting tougher in the last debate? Romney's ability to advertise pervasively in the big state? All the conservative big shots who ganged up on Gingrich? That crazy moon-shot business?

I think that Gingrich is going to continue to get creamed in critical states. Think of it the difference between campaigns run by an MBA and a history professor. Organization and planning count here, probably more than the souring (or attacking) rhetoric.

And, that organizational ability is part of why I think that Romney would be a far better President. We have seen how horribly a part time law professor, then legislative back bencher has done running our government, and now many seem willing to trade that for an idea-a-minute dreamer with little more organizational experience.

Senator Rubio said it best "Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist,” Mr. Rubio insisted. “He’s a conservative.”

That alone speaks volumes to the Tea Party folks, as it sure did for me. I want someone else in the White House, and most folks that I hang with here in SW corner of Ohio (not too far from Loveland where you know who is from) does not think Newt can win

Senator Rubio said it best "Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist,” Mr. Rubio insisted. “He’s a conservative.”

Never did understand this - last time around, Romney was considered to the right of McCain. Sure, Gov. Huckleberry was to the right of both of them socially, maybe, but was, at heart, a Southern Democrat, in terms of government spending.

Sure, Romney had to make some compromises, running one of the deepest blue states. Just like GW Bush will forever be tarred with the excesses of the Democratic party controlled 110th Congress. But, I don't see that as controlling how he would govern with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Whenever Newt gets ahead he shoots himself in the foot. Several times in Florida he got the most popular Republican, Marco Rubio with a 77% approval rating, to defend Romney. And Rubio declined to endorse either candidate, so he wouldn't have gotten involved otherwise.

Newt's poor performances in the last two debates undermine his claims that he could defeat Obama by clearly defeating him in every debate. And his whining about not doing well afterwards made him look like a sore loser.

Also, Newt's attack on the establishment is not a viable long-term strategy. The establishment people are the ones who help the nominee get elected after all. You can't run a campaign against them unless you do it from another party.

Still, it is not totally without interest. Maybe this could salvage it for you, it does for me. The word 'primary' is an interesting word to make and to see. It is a wonderfully graphically explicit two-handed double-motion word. Goes like this:

The rigid open "5" hand is extended in front of the chest, palm inward, back of the hand toward the viewer, thumb straight up.

The opposite open hand flies toward the prepositioned 5 and touches the bottom pinkie finger dead center in the palm. Like you intended to clap your hands together but instead stabbed one hand with a pinkie finger. This is the first movement.

Now the stabbed hand traces an arc across the tips of the remaining fingers and lands on the thumb as if stabbing a piece of paper on a spindle. This is the second movement.

The first hand never moves once it is positioned. It provides the 5 spindles against which the opposite hand defines lowest to topmost points.

The final shot of the flash of movement is two full splayed hands presented to the viewer, one as paper to the other's spindle. This is quite an extraordinary flamboyant hand presentation equivalent to making a flapping eagle.

You can see how this movement silently shouts the concept of "prime" or "top of a stack of things."

You can see the word here but you must select "p" from the alphabet then scroll down the word list to "primary." The bird showing this word is tripping me out. She has hair down past her ass and she maintains a persistent expression that says to me, "pffffft."

Romney was on his game in the last debate - he's been that forceful before, however.

I think the real issue is that Newt peaked; he had his close up, Mr Demille, and the fact that he could debate well (always the big impetus for him) was seen as not being enough, that his views and statements over the last decade made his position as the Conservative hope untenable.

The business of the moon base, or Romney's confronting him over it, may have been what did him in.

PS Also keep in mind FL is the first closed primary, so a lot of people who voted for Newt, or Santorum, may have had alternative motives.

pauldar: Senator Rubio said it best "Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist,” Mr. Rubio insisted. “He’s a conservative.”

Yes! Newt comparing Romney to Christ was ridiculous. Crist is famous for attacking his own party, which is Newt's bread and butter. I was there when Crist made his announcement to run as an independent. Almost nothing Newt could have said would have made me dislike him more.

edutcher: Romney was on his game in the last debate - he's been that forceful before, however.

It looks though, as if Romney has learned from the debate experience. I know he's switched debate coaches and it seems to have done him well. If Romney does make it to the Presidency he may have Newt to thank for it.

Also keep in mind FL is the first closed primary, so a lot of people who voted for Newt, or Santorum, may have had alternative motives.

I tend to discount that sort of malice on the part of voters. People want what's best for the country as a whole. The people who don't probably aren't registered to vote anyway.

Just about of the GOP candidates have now gotten their 5 minutes of fame...Cain early on, Santorum in Iowa, Newt in SC. The media has tried really hard to get "someone else" on the ticket to seriously challenge Romney, because the media knows Romney will in all likelihood beat Obama.

I personally think Newt would debate Obama just fine, but with Obama having $1 billion lying around for the campaign this summer, Newt is unelectable because of his baggage IMO. Republicans are now starting to see that, even some tea party types. The main focus is to get Obama out of office, and Romney has the best chance of the current GOP field to do it.

Somehow Romney has to now figure out how to get those Santorum votes. Those will go somewhere. Not necessarily to Mitt.

The GOP will support whomever gets the nomination, because most smart conservatives and Republicans understand that getting Obama out of office is going to be the primary objective of the elections in November.

15-20% of the GOP will probably be holding their nose while they vote, but they will vote for Romney nonetheless if the is the nominee.

The explanation is pretty simple. if you live in Florida, you cannot watch TV without getting inundated by negative commercials from Romney attacking Gingrich.

Those commercials are so misleading and so out of context, I will never vote for Romney under any circumstances. He is a despicable person unfit for any office. Unless you live in a primary state and are seeing these lies, you cannot appreciate how Romney and his PAC are flooding the airways.

Newt started whining -- no audience participation; Romney stacked the audience; he is the most dishonest, they are the most dishonest while I am clean as a whistle...; can't deal with liars, Romney lies (and Obama doesn't?) on and on..

But, finally, we've all got to get down to business, and Newt starts to grate the nerves after a while.

Joke candidate is jokey.

The adults in the Republican Party were never going to let Newt be the nominee.

It was fun letting the Tea Party kids play around for a little bit with Newt, but when it comes time to get serious then that means picking a squishy moderate (Dole/McCain/Romney) to lose the general election.

Also, can conservatives retire their delusion that liberals are scared of Newt debating Obama?

It's been clear throughout this primary that Democrats saw Gingrich as a fatally flawed candidate more worthy of mockery and derision than a serious response, and that it was the Republican establishment that were the ones who destroyed Newt.

Saying that Obama/Democrats are scared of Newt is almost as dumb as saying they are scared of Palin.

Rick Caird: Those commercials are so misleading and so out of context, I will never vote for Romney under any circumstances. He is a despicable person unfit for any office. Unless you live in a primary state and are seeing these lies, you cannot appreciate how Romney and his PAC are flooding the airways.

Remember, Newt said he was going to defeat Obama by using the media against him. That he can't do it to Romney proves that his strategy is untenable.

I live in Florida, used to be a Newt supporter and experienced no moral quandary voting for Romney last Saturday.

If the passionate Tea Party types are frozen out, who will be left to be passionate about stopping Obama? The polite GOP moderates, having already won the war to take their party back from the Tea Party loonies, will rest at home on election day.

1. He is one of those people with a finite shelf life...Initially his bombast attracts people in the middle, moderate camp "Wow, he doesn't hold back and he's intriguing!" - but like Jesse Jackson and Sarah Palin - those people quickly become alienated the more exposure the candidate has.

2. His narrative of "Me&Reagan" saving the economy and winning the Cold War against Russia collapsed when the facts became known that Newt was a junior back bencher at the time making speeches to an empty chamber.His narrative of balancing the budget collapsed when people remembered it was Clinton's tax increase passed over Newt's opposition that was the biggest factor and also the main driver of the 1994 House takeover..not Newt.

3. The huge mistake of pandering to the Space Coast with a multitrillion dollar "moon Colony" boondoggle - then defending it in debate - reinforced the perception of Gingrich as a nutty Perfessor and reckless spender. His big WTF???? moment with the Tea Party.

4. Florida isn't the deep South the last state was - where Newt was forgiven all past sins because he professed to love Jesus and told off them Thar Yankee Media Elites.

No, it's people maybe coming to their senses that of all the candidates that Romney might be a guy who is somewhat even tempered and hasn't been shown to be a small, mean, bitter little man like Gingrich has. That simply going after leftard media isn't going to cut it in a presidential election and that defeating Urkel is what is necessary without all the baggage that a guy like Gingrich has and that Romney does not.

There seem to be four main possibilities:1) Republicans would lose with Gingrich or with Romney.2) Republicans would win with Romney and lose with Gingrich.3) Republicans would win with Gingrich and lose with Romney.4) Republicans would win with Gingrich or with Romney.

The likelihood of each of these possibilities happening should have some bearing on who is nominated.

I'm of the opinion that the Republicans are going to lose either way, unless they find a way to tank the economy without getting blamed for it.

Romney will win in FL. Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul will stay in the race for a bit, Paul to the bitter end, and it's all good. Newt is running on ego; Santorum is running for 2016. Paul is a crank, but they will make Romney better. Romney is the nominee.

Obama will start sliming relatively soon, but he'll hold off full bore Romney hate until after the convention. He'll play the race card. It's all he's got. Romney shouldn't respond, but just hammer on the economy.

The chances of a global economic downturn between now and the election are quite good. Obama's only hope is an international crisis that he'll mismanage, but that might distract the electorate from the ruins of the economy, but that's a very long shot.

GodZero dropped 2 points on average after the SOTU. Anyone who follows Rasmussen knows that Zero's numbers improve a bit when he's out of sight (he's at -16 on the approval index), but, once the nomination is settled, Milton will go up a bit and Zero is stuck with an ever-stagnating economy (1.7% GDP for last year) and growing inflation.

And that assumes nothing else (Occupiers following through on their threats of "asymmetrical warfare", the Euros crashing, terror attacks) happens.

In the end, people will vote for the candidate they like. In today's world, that means they will go for the most telegenic candidate. That will be true as long as the candidate doesn't get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

The independents will always break for the more telegentic candidate. And in the general, that ain't Newt.

Romney was an early supporter of Rubio, Newt backed Crist until it was evident that Rubio would win. Newt is no TP guy, he is all Newt, all the time. Romney fixed corruption at Salt Lake Olympics, Obama and Newt have no history of battling corruption.

The other part people forget is how nasty the primary was in 2000. Particularly in South Carolina. Bush unloaded on John McCain. Just unloaded on him with negative attacks. And Rush joined in on the pile dive as well.

I think the GOP will come through this fine, provided that Romney can figure out some way to find his voice or a voice. But I'm still skeptical that is going to happen.

I detest Maureen Dowd but agree with what she says in her column today :he[Obama] was no Abe Lincoln in debates. He did not like debating, and Michelle urged him to be more visceral. He often faded onstage because he stubbornly refused to accept debates as alpha combat rather than beta seminars. He disdained anything he saw as superficial politics, from sound bites to macho put-downs.

If Obama continues to resist the gladiatorial subtext, while Romney embraces it, the debates could be more evenly matched than the Republicans dare to dream.

Newt is peddling his debate skills to squash Obama but as I have always thought that is irrelevant. For one, Obama will never put himself at Newt's mercy for debates and second, Newt is showing he is as thin skinned as Obama in the recent debates. It is scary that he looks like a mirror image of Obama.

Hagar said..."If Gingrich was not working for FrddieMac, just exactly what did they pay him 1.6 mllion dollars for?"

There is an interesting article in the NY Daily News:http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-16/news/30407815_1_role-in-housing-finance-freddie-mac-fannie-mae

"Gingrich's history at Freddie Mac began in 1999, when he was hired by the company's top lobbyist, Mitchell Delk. He was brought in for strategic consulting, primarily on legislative and regulatory issues, the company said at the time. That job, which paid about $30,000 a month, lasted until sometime in 2002.

In 2006, Gingrich was hired again on a two-year contract that paid him $300,000 annually, again to provide strategic advice while the company fended off attacks from the right wing of the Republican Party."

"Gingrich sought to explain his role at Freddie Mac as that of a "historian" sounding dire warnings about the company's future. He said company officials told him "we are now making loans to people that have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do." He said his advice was to tell them, "this is insane."

Former executives dispute Gingrich's description of his role.

Four people close to Freddie Mac say he was hired to strategize with his employer about identifying political friends on Capitol Hill who would help the company through a very difficult legislative environment. All four spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the personnel matter freely.

Freddie Mac executives hoped Gingrich's presence would reflect positively on the company as he circulated among conservative groups and would help build intellectual support within his party, the officials said."

Gingrich worked (for a very large amount of money) for Freddie Mac as a lobbyist and lied about it.

-ran against a businessman who was (OMG) successful-demanded to see his opponents tax returns (?because his opponent wasn't paying enough taxes)-insisted his Republican opponent was anti-immigrant-suggested spending billions on a Moon base-and now is running against the Republican party

pm317 said... I detest Maureen Dowd but agree with what she says in her column today :

Dowd says "He often faded onstage because he stubbornly refused to accept debates as alpha combat rather than beta seminars."

I don't detest Dowd, I merely recognize she's either a partisan hack or an idiot. Either she completely misunderstands everything or she's intentionally propping up Obama by lessening a weakness as best she can. She's trying to convince readers that Obama only loses debates because he has integrity.

The truth is Obama is a shitty debater because the ideas generated in the far left activist cesspool he comes from simply don't work and most Americans understand that. Like most far leftists his primary tactic defending his position against counterarguments is to assert irrelevancies and claim victory. This tactic only works among the far left because of their unique combination of obstinate stupidity and complete ignorance.

His only assets which appeal to anyone beyond the far left are charisma and race.

AJ...As Herman Cain said today, the wide difference between Gingrich and Obama will make Tea Partiers vote in droves, but the small differences between Individual Mandate Mitt and Obama will discourage even the moderate Republicans.

Meanwhile a High Speed Slogan Express barreling down the track from Axelrod and Obama will remake the election into an "out of touch Rich Man" versus a Fairness Man decision for the swing voters in the swing state's voting booths.

Then if you are a tea Partier in a non-swing state, then your voting or not voting means nothing.

@Fen--Why do you think that a guy who made his fortune off of "public service" is a better bet to go against the Beltway than a guy who made his money in the business world and whose government experience is as a governor.

It's baffling to see people put Gingrich up as the Galahad of the Tea Party when he started his campaign by throwing Paul Ryan under the bus.

Failed candidates aren't always the best in saying what the voters will do.

Newt is for Newt. He was the last of the surge candidates, which means that it's only after everyone else dropped off the map that Newt got attention by voters. Tea Partiers know Newt for who he is, utterly untrustworthy and a big part of the problem in the 90s that led to such a corrupt Republican leadership in Congress.

People who know (which manifestly does not include Romney) don't think Gingrich's moonbase idea is particularly wrong. Even the NY Times was defending Gingrich. Romney's answers varied between clueless and bureaucratic.

It should be noted that Romney and Bain lost their shirts in the VC business, and had to change to leveraged buyout strategies instead.

"It should be noted that Romney and Bain lost their shirts in the VC business, and had to change to leveraged buyout strategies instead."

At the end of the day, it looks like they had quite a bit of underwear to give.

Re: Gingrich. I feel like Gingrich is a quick debater, example his repsonse to the DREAM Act question, and that might tranlsate somewhat to policy. I like the idea of kids being able to work and the relevance of it, another idea of his. The WSJ had something not related to the campains which would support that from a neuropsychological perspective yesterday. But, and there is a butt, he apparetnly got oppositional with those he should have worked with, was perhaps too much of an opportunist, Marianne and Freddie Mac might be representative of that. Though Romney seems like Eddie on Leave it to Beaver, he is a serious man who knows business and economic development as well as anybody we can get, and with $14 trillion and facts and all that, we might accept his application.

Newt says he will set up community groups to decide if an illegal immigrant should stay or go. How the heck does he think that would guarantee a fair, safe & equitable system from sea to shining sea? It may be the the dumbest idea of all time.

===============I like that. I also like the idea of Newt becoming UN Ambassador and absolutely screwing that place up with his bullshit. I await the UN proposing moon colonies, space mirrors.

Or sending Newt as Ambassador to a country we really, really hate. I'd establish diplomatic relations with N Korea or Iran just so we could send them Newt to live with.The French actually are a great people and they do not deserve Newt - though he parle vous Frenchie as Romney does.

And, sorry, but we gave at the office. Conservatives have already voted for Romney. Several times. Conservatives voted for Romney back when he went by the name of McCain. And before that when he used the name Dole. And conservatives voted for Romney in non-presidential races when he ran under the name Specter, and Graham, and Hegel, and Warner, and countless other times.

Sorry, but we're all out of votes for him yet again. The "you have no other choice, so bend over and take it" argument isn't going to work this time.

Sure, Romney had to make some compromises, running one of the deepest blue states.

Bender said - "That's right. It's not Romney fault that he voluntarily chose to make his home in liberal Massachusetts rather than his native moderate Michigan.============================It is hard to explain things to someone a little "challenged" and a Perry supporter impressed with Perry's brains and sharpness...but here is a try.

Bender -

1. People move where the work is. Call it "voluntary", but in certain industries, you work in certain states in certain areas, or you don't work in those industries.2. People tend to raise their families in the state where they work.3. If they do any political or public service - it also is in the states where they work and raise their families.

It's a sad & frustrating state of affairs when it's hard to differentiate mobys (which is what I'd normally peg Bender as) and bona fide conservatives.

Even if someone like Bender is bona fide, if they would actually vote for Obama (or not vote against him) over Romney (who, after all, was the 2008 primary choice-- the lesser evil-- for hardcore conservatives like Limbaugh, Levin, etc.)-- in order to teach "the establishment" (or the voices in their head, or whatever shadowy evil conspiracy more urgent to combat than Obama) "a lesson"-- they're no better than mobys to me.

LOL @ Cedarford 4:51. I object to much of what you say (at other times); but I gotta admit when you make a funny (& in this case I agree). I'd love to see Gingrich vs. Chavez-- fight to the death! My money's on Newt.

I believe that (though a moby might echo him word for word). That makes it all the more frustrating. Anyway, there are probably some number of partisans in every election (in both parties) who feel the same way.

He immersed himself in the 1970 senatorial campaign of his mother,,...that same year, the Cougar Club — the all male, all white social club at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City (blacks were excluded from full membership in the Mormon church until 1978) — was humming with talk that its president, Mitt Romney, would become the first Mormon president of the United States. “If not Mitt, then who?” was the ubiquitous slogan within the elite organization. The pious world of BYU was expected to spawn the man who would lead the Mormons into the White House and fulfill the prophecies of the church’s founder, Joseph Smith Jr., which Romney has avidly sought to realize.

Romney avoids mentioning it, but Smith ran for president in 1844 as an independent commander in chief of an “army of God” advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government in favor of a Mormon-ruled theocracy. Challenging Democrat James Polk and Whig Henry Clay, Smith prophesied that if the U.S. Congress did not accede to his demands that “they shall be broken up as a government and God shall damn them.” Smith viewed capturing the presidency as part of the mission of the church. He had predicted the emergence of “the one Mighty and Strong” — a leader who would “set in order the house of God” — and became the first of many prominent Mormon men to claim the mantle.

Smith’s insertion of religion into politics and his call for a “theodemocracy where God and people hold the power to conduct the affairs of men in righteous matters” created a sensation and drew hostility from the outside world. But his candidacy was cut short when he was shot to death by an anti-Mormon vigilante mob. Out of Smith’s national political ambitions grew what would become known in Mormon circles as the “White Horse Prophecy” — a belief ingrained in Mormon culture and passed down through generations by church leaders that the day would come when the U.S. Constitution would “hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber” and the Mormon priesthood would save it.

Romney is the product of this culture. At BYU, he was idolized by fellow students and referred to, only half jokingly, as the “One Mighty and Strong.” He was the “alpha male” in the rarefied Cougar pack, according to Michael D. Moody, a BYU classmate and fellow member of the group.

They held monthly “Fireside testimonies” — Sacrament meetings at which each member testified to his belief that he lived in Heaven before being born on Earth, that he became mortal in order to usher in the latter days, and that he recognized Joseph Smith as the prophet, the Book of Mormon as the word of God, and the Mormon church as the one true faith.

So it seemed disingenuous to his former club mates when, in a 2006 magazine interview, Romney denied his longtime political aspirations. “I have to admit I did not think I was going to be in politics,” he told the American Spectator.

Michael Moody says political success was an institutional value of the LDS church.

“The instructions in my [patriarchal] blessing, which I believed came directly from Jesus, motivated me to seek a career in government and politics,” he wrote in his 2008 book. Moody recently said that he ran for governor of Nevada in 1982 because he felt he had been divinely directed to “expand our kingdom” and help Romney “lead the world into the Millennium. Once a firm believer but now a church critic, Moody was indoctrinated with the White Horse Prophecy.

“We were taught that America is the Promised Land,” he said in an interview.”The Mormons are the Chosen People. And the time is now for a Mormon leader to usher in the second coming of Christ and install the political Kingdom of God in Washington, D.C.”

Also, can conservatives retire their delusion that liberals are scared of Newt debating Obama?

Andy, I don't know if you are just delusional or really just so stupid from having a dick in your mouth constantly pounding that tiny, infantile, shriveled shit sack you call a brain. Newt would turn Obama into a human mop and wipe up the floor with him. Your only problem is that Urkel would run scared into a debate and may only debate him once. And all it takes is once. Don't fool yourself. Well, insofar as you being a bigger fool to begin with.

I have no doubt that, on a good day, in the right circumstances, Newt could make mincemeat of Obama in a debate, maybe better than anyone else could. That would be great fun to watch.

On a bad day... and before an unfriendly audience...

Romney may often have a political tin ear, but this made me laugh-- and it's on point:

Mitt Romney delivered a new zinger against Newt Gingrich in an event in Orlando just now, mocking him over his complaints about this week’s debates. “I had fun last night, I gotta tell you,” Romney said. “Now Speaker Gingrich said after the debate before last night that the crowd wasnt allowed to cheer so he couldn’t do so well because the crowd was too quiet.

“Then last night he said the crowd was too loud, he couldn’t deal with it. It’s like Goldilocks, you know – the porridge is too hot, the porridge is too cold. Look, I’m looking forward to debating Barack Obama. I don’t worry too much about the crowd. I’ve got to make sure we tell the truth to Barack Obama and get him out of the White House.”

PS I don't know if he'll read this, but I just want to apologize to Bender for appearing to suggest (through sloppy wording) that he might be a moby.

I didn't think he was; my point was that, because of all the drama this primary season, my moby-radar is out of order... and that, given my feelings regarding a 2nd Obama term, I feel greatly irritated by purist conservatives who would would facilitate his re-election.

But I despise mobys, and it's not an accusation to be tossed lightly, and you're a good commenter, so it was improper of me to suggest (even inadvertently) that you're not expressing your views in good faith. My apologies.